Julian Assange: 'We Released Thousands of Emails Clinton Herself Has Used a 'C' in Brackets'

She lied or was mistaken? /shrug Could you prove she lied in a court of law?

Your belief won't cut it in that venue.

I've never said anything other than politicians were corrupt ... all of them, every one and every one that WANTS to be one.

For me, it's not even a claim that corruption is rampant (it is on all sides) or that Clinton is corrupt, although, as I've said on more than one
occasion ... I would bet my tin-foil cap that the BS that gets promulgated through the right-wing media is the LEAST of what she's done.

It's smoke and mirrors in an elaborate game in which there are no "sides" other than those with power and those without.

Punishments will end corruption? Oh Grambler ... again I am impressed by your idealism.

For these folks a "punishment" is more like losing a hand in poker. Temporary.

a reply to: Gryphon66
But that gets back to the first question, if it is shown she used a c for classified of confidential information herself, do you think that is proof
she lied when she said she though it meant alphabetical order?

Even if it can't be proven 100% in court, surely you are not buying this if it is found she herself used a c. And even if you do, surely you can
understand the people here who think this is incredibly shady.

And you are right, that no matter what punishments there are, there will always be corruption. However, if the punishments are severe enough, it
would end a lot of it.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66
But that gets back to the first question, if it is shown she used a c for classified of confidential information herself, do you think that is proof
she lied when she said she though it meant alphabetical order?

Even if it can't be proven 100% in court, surely you are not buying this if it is found she herself used a c. And even if you do, surely you can
understand the people here who think this is incredibly shady.

And you are right, that no matter what punishments there are, there will always be corruption. However, if the punishments are severe enough, it
would end a lot of it.

You have a fine, detailed mind that I haven't always appreciated.

I answered your question. Did she lie? Probably. Who knows? Can it be proven? Nope.

Let me give you a for instance that keeps me from being too overly excited by all this falderol over (c)'s ...

I'm sure you're involved in some level of a complex business.

If I put you on the spot, right off the bat, and showed you some document that you'd dealt with four years ago, and started asking you detailed
questions about it ... what would your honest answer be?

Would you state that you remember a given document in perfect, crystal-clear detail?

She is either incompetent or corrupt, none of which are fitting for someone who has decades of experience in politics and running for the highest
office in the land. Not to mention, she looks like she's I'll. The cognitive dissonance must be downright painful in some supporters right now.

She has lied well enough to deceive some of her supporters, whom find comfort in their thraldom, but it looks as though her charade is cracking at the
seams.

I answered your question. Did she lie? Probably. Who knows? Can it be proven? Nope.

I think with the evidence we have now, you are right. I could be wrong, but I think for charges to be filed you don't have to have 100% proof, just a
reasonable suspicion that she lied to the FBI. The courts (or whatever agency this would go to) would determine rather or not there is enough
evidence to find her guilty.

And even if it can't be proven, surely you can understand people being mad at her for it, like many on this thread.

Let me give you a for instance that keeps me from being too overly excited by all this falderol over (c)'s ...

I'm sure you're involved in some level of a complex business.

If I put you on the spot, right off the bat, and showed you some document that you'd dealt with four years ago, and started asking you detailed
questions about it ... what would your honest answer be?

Would you state that you remember a given document in perfect, crystal-clear detail?

Or would you say, in an attempt to be honest, "I don't remember."

Ok I will have to admit I hadn't thought about it before you brought this up, but this is a great point.

Let me first say she said she couldn't recall a huge amount of times, not just once or twice, so that seems excessive.

However, you ar 100% right that in the situation you provide I would legitimately not remember many things like one specific meeting out of many. I
am sure with the amount of meetings she had, almost all of which had a great deal of importance, that it would be quite reasonable to not remember a
meeting on procedures, no matter how important it was.

I will totally give her the benefit of the doubt on this, but I also understand other people skepticism.

However, what I wouldn't do is make something totally up if I couldn't remember, like the c meaning alphabetical. I would have just said the truth, I
forgot what it meant, or I just overlooked it when I was reading the documents. Why make up a story if you legitimately don't remember?

This is especially dubious if it is true that she herself used the c for its intended purpose. Are we really to believe that she knew what it meant
when she was making a document, but forget every time she saw it reading other documents? This seems like a stretch.

I understand that the "email scandal" and the "perjury scandal" have been fed to those Americans with a right-wing bent as fodder to keep them
interested in small things. Both are also so poorly supported and trivial that this has the dual effect of keeping those with a left-wing bent
obsessed with pointing this out to their right-wing counterparts.

Rinse and repeat (or is that Reince and repeat?)

Don't give her the benefit of any doubt. Stand by your interpretation of the facts AS LONG AS you aren't allowing yourself to be swayed by the
rhetoric that is used to keep both "sides" in conflict and turmoil.

If something is released that shows Hillary herself used a "C" to mark classified information, would you think this proves that she lied?

And do you think lying to the FBI is a big deal?

If he indeed has this mountain of evidence it raises some serious questions about the FBI investigation doesn't it?

My problem isn't seeing Hillary go down, it's not something I'll lose any sleep over but I can't be the only person who has a problem with a foreginer
trying to influence the outcome of our country's most important election with these alleged documents — classified/confidential/senstive documents
at that — obtained from an unknown source?

This should raise grave concerns for all of us on principle alone. Is there anyone who actually believes that it's beyond belief that Assange
is doing the bidding of the Russian government, deliberately or otherwise? I've heard him deny/deflect that the documents he released earlier came
from state-sponsored hacks but we simply do not and cannot know the truth of that.

The fact that he's going on Sean "I never claimed to be a journalist" Hannity's show to make announcements is that much worse as Hannity is an
admitted advisor to Donald Trump.

My other problem with this is the timeframe of the announcements and releases. Is he going to wait until the day before the election? If his goal is
to sink to Clinton which certainly seems to be the case (again, the thought that a foreigner is pulling strings that directly really pisses me off but
I'll set that aside), then why is he waiting until the point where it would be a practical impossibility for the Democrats to put up anyone else to
run against Donald Trump?

WTF is that?

Do we really want Julian Assange determining the outcome of US presidential elections? In theory, I like the idea of Wikileaks but the reality is that
we have a self-appointed foreign agent, possibly a willing or unwitting front for foreign governments, who is being provided with the tools necessary
to influence American politics and unilaterally acting to promote an agenda only he knows.

How can anyone support that?[

It seems odd to me that some of the same people who are calling Clinton a traitor for the mere possibility that she gave preferential access to donors
to the Clinton Foundation as Secretary of State apparently have no reservations about this (and I'm not by any means implying that you are one of
them).

She is either incompetent or corrupt, none of which are fitting for someone who has decades of experience in politics and running for the highest
office in the land. Not to mention, she looks like she's I'll. The cognitive dissonance must be downright painful in some supporters right now.

She has lied well enough to deceive some of her supporters, whom find comfort in their thraldom, but it looks as though her charade is cracking at the
seams.

She definitely doesn't appear to live up to her reputation as a central figure in innumerable high-level conspiracies.

Consider how frequently the Clintons are alleged to be behind successful assassinations (numbering in the double digits) to cover their tracks and yet
she couldn't manage to assassinate her own email server? What would that have required? A single act of arson, if that?

It is a very complicated issue. I certainly do not support the hacking of any person of agency, particularly if it is by an outside political actor.

But if the system is corrupt, what chance do the people ever have for transparency and justice?

I guess I am more concerned with what the leaks say than who released them. I am sure you would agree that we shouldn't just turn a blind eye to the
content of these leaks based on suspicions of who leaked them. But that seems to be Hillary's stance.

I also wish Assange would just release everything as soon as possible. I am sure he is aware that the media will try to cover up this info, and
thinks that he needs to release it a specific times to ensure that it is not covered up, but come on! Just show us the goods. Also, if he has any
incriminating evidence against the RNC or Trump, I would want him to release it too. I hope he is not playing favorites like so many in the MSM.

I will say that you are right to be skeptical. I am just guessing, but I bet that if Assange or another group was just releasing damning Trump hacks,
many of his supporters would go bananas saying the fix was in, so I can see how Hillary supporters would feel the same way.

That is why I take the stance that no matter what are feelings are on how the data was obtained or who released it, we still take the content of
those messages seriously.

Does not matter if it is marked or not. Broke so many OPSEC laws. I do not think it's possible to break anymore other than giving access to someone
with the intent to attack the US. Then Sidney Bluementhal, how was he getting access to all this stuff. There is a whole line of people involved in it
at many different levels. Especially the ones who knew about it and were suppose to stop it yet did nothing. These people are still employed. Nobody
learned anything from it other than Hillary can't be touched.

She definitely doesn't appear to live up to her reputation as a central figure in innumerable high-level conspiracies.

Consider how frequently the Clintons are alleged to be behind successful assassinations (numbering in the double digits) to cover their tracks and yet
she couldn't manage to assassinate her own email server? What would that have required? A single act of arson, if that?

That's cognitive dissonance too, no?

Cognitive dissonance is the stress or discomfort one gets while holding contradictory beliefs. It's more of an inner turmoil that results in the
changing of beliefs or behaviour (admitting one is wrong), or in some cases, the seeking of new information to justify contradictory beliefs and
behaviour. But I would expect that you are right and some in the anti-Clinton camp would have it, at least if they are equally concerned about being
reasonable. As you know, many are simply not reasonable.

She lied or was mistaken? /shrug Could you prove she lied in a court of law?

Your belief won't cut it in that venue.

I've never said anything other than politicians were corrupt ... all of them, every one and every one that WANTS to be one.

For me, it's not even a claim that corruption is rampant (it is on all sides) or that Clinton is corrupt, although, as I've said on more than one
occasion ... I would bet my tin-foil cap that the BS that gets promulgated through the right-wing media is the LEAST of what she's done.

It's smoke and mirrors in an elaborate game in which there are no "sides" other than those with power and those without.

Punishments will end corruption? Oh Grambler ... again I am impressed by your idealism.

For these folks a "punishment" is more like losing a hand in poker. Temporary.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial
branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall
be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section
2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the
term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

I think that any reasonable person (and certainly an experienced Judge) would be able to conclude that...given that she herself has used the (C)
marking on hundreds of official emails and cables (evidence of which would be put before the court from Wikileaks' already released documents)...that
she "knowingly and willingly" lied to the FBI in her response to the question.

It's not rocket science.

She was asked. She answered. She lied.

The only mystery (yet to be solved) is exactly why James Comey refused to indict her for this simple (and obvious) offence...forget about everything
else for the moment. Martha Stewart got hammered...why not Hillary?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.